People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 April 1894 — OAKES MUST EXPLAIN. [ARTICLE]

OAKES MUST EXPLAIN.

Th« Northern Receiver Ordered tc Face Chargee at Fraud. Milwaukee, April 17.—Judge Jenkins has denied the petition for the removal of the Northern Pacific receivers. The days of Thomas F. Oakes as one of the receivers of the Northern Pacific railroad are numbered unless he can disprove three serious charges brought against him by Brayton Ives, and which Judge Jenkins Saturday said had not been answered to the satisfaction of the court in Mr. Oakes’ reply to the petition for his removal. In the words of the court the denials of Mr. Oakes were not substantial denials. The charges that Receiver Oakes must prove false in order to retain his position are that he allowed deals to be made whereby certain di-ectors made great profits, and which resulted in looting the treasury and wrecking the corporation. Here they are: The purchase of the Chicago terminals for fs.uW.IXX) in excess of their cost and the pocketing of the profit by Villard, Colby, Abbott and Hoyt. The purchase of the Rocky Fork & Cooke City railroad This road was built by a syndicate of Northern Pacific directors at a cost of GB.OOO per mile and was sold to the Northern Pacific for 13J.000 a mile, giving the directors' syndicate, of which Villard was president, a profit of 46JJ.00A The purchase of the Northern Pacific & Manitoba railroad for JiO.WO a mile. It was built at a cost of 412,009 per mile by the directors' syndicate, which netted ;SDJ,OOJ by the deal.

Judge Jenkins said explanations regarding these shady transactions must be forthcoming, and, inorder to get the necessary light, will refer this- portion of the petition to a special examiner for the purpose of taking testimony. Concerning the charges against Receivers Payne and Rouse, Judge Jenkins said they had done nothing to merit their removal. The only mistake they had made was in joining with Mr. Oakes in having separate receivers appointed for the various branch lines and thus creating heavy and unnecessary expenses. The court said that while in this matter they had acted hastily and were ill-advised he did not deem their action sufficient ground to warrant their removal.